and most of my FAA writtens! :D




i'm kidding, I think. I did score a 100% on my written. 3 months after my checkride I got a letter in the mail that there was a mess up and I made an 88. :D

Hell, 75% would have gotten me the head greenskeeper job. :D

Carl

Actually,

They're not. Anything that we want now is totally based on what we currently have and what the new (pay rate, work rules, insurance coverage, pension, etc.) will be in relation to the profitability of the company, the other competitors similar rules/pay, etc. How does a SWA pilot (which only flies domestic, with only NB 737s, etc.) become the highest paid pax pilots. Wishing we could go back to Contract 2000 rates (with a pension, TOO) with COLAs can be a goal but living in the past is a poor way to go through life.

JMHO:)

I wish we would further the whole ability to take "shotguns" with us on overseas flights! :D

DAL, I agree with every thing you said but imho, no pension. I hear this time to time while flying and others hear about it, but I do not ever want a pension and if anyone wants to know why (beyond what already has happened) just look at whats happening to government pensions below. It's best to have the money in our own accounts. Its easy to promise things but obviously it didn't work.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...(Q5CeWvQ3DqQ2F

Struggling states and cities need to save money, but they run into legal problems if they tamper with the pensions their current workers are building up year by year. So most places have opted to let current workers and retirees go unscathed. Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota are the exceptions, dialing back cost-of-living increases for people who have already retired. All three states have reaped meaningful savings right away, and all three are being sued.

Cuts for workers not yet hired do not save much money in the present — but that’s where actuaries can work their magic. They capture the future savings for use today by assuming, in essence, that 100 percent of today’s work force is already earning tomorrow’s skimpier benefits. When used in actuarial calculations, that assumption has a powerful effect. It reduces the amount a government must put into its workers’ pension fund every year.

That saves the government money. But it undermines the pension fund, which must still pay the richer benefits of today’s retirees. And because the calculations are esoteric, it is hard for anyone except a seasoned actuary to see what is going on.
-----
Funding Pensions a Bigger Burden: http://www.pe.com/business/local/sto...9.20cb31c.html
-----
Was politics behind the government's decision to preserve the UAW's pensions?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091706617.html

Couldn't agree more. Sure would be nice, especially given the recent MEX memo. :eek:

FTB,

Be careful what you wish for.........You do have a pension now, it's just a defined contribution vs a defined benefit...... I know what you meant! I'm just givin' you the business!!:D

Denny

My BP is finally recovering from the Auburn game. Hopefully they learn how to play two halves soon.

WAR EAGLE

You and me both there brother. Tuff to live in SC and survive a loss by a SC team. On to Usc next.

War Eagle!

Hi!

Just saw the score. VERY glad we won! I saw when Clemson scored the first TD, but then had to leave and study a TON!

War Eagle!

cliff
1984 AFROTC